WJC: Quarter Final Talk!

[Namejs]

Since Ciernik didn´t contribute much, I wouldn´t add any extra points to Finnish odds, tbh. Never thought I´ll say this, but fortunately, Natny and Pisoja would be bigger losses and they´re ready to play.

Kukumberg played in Ciernik's place on the 2nd line. If that is the alternative, it is a major downgrade that affects the entire line and Dvorsky's production. Ciernik already is a pro hockey player, Kukumberg would play 4th line wing for Latvia.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Your math is wrong.

88.7% of 35 is 31.05 or 3.95 GA
91% of 35 is 31.75 or 3.25 GA
Or on average a 0.7 goal differential, not 1.

I was being generous with that 'extra goal'.

Urban has a .881 save percentage, not .887. Gajan has a .911 save percetange, not .910

,881*35 = 30.8 or 4.2 GA
.910*35 = 31.9 or 3.1 GA

4.2 - 3.1 = 1.1

Might want to double check your facts before calling out my math

Care to elaborate on the evidence backing up your claims of non-linear spread of expected SVS% when moving up a tier?

Any shots faced by a higher quality opposition would reduce Gajan's SVS% in a similar way. Your assumption is based on a non-falsifiable belief in Gajan's prowess, which is not backed up by data.

More shots against = more goals against. More high quality shot against = more goals against. We should expect the relative spread of GA to scale across goaltenders based on talent.

Example: A beer league goalie might only allow 3 more goals against beer league shooters than an NHL goalie (3 goals vs a probable shutout), but the spread would obviously be much greater vs NHL shooters

I can't believe this has to be explained.

I am starting from that point, because 'that point' is what the entire concept of free market is based on. The market forces involved in betting increase or decrease the odds until they've reached an equilibrium.

What you're saying is that the market is very wrong.

You think a bunch of people betting on WJC games are betting with full information? Or are they maybe anchoring more on past tournament performance?

The odds makers had a Canada as the +160 favorites to beat Sweden, even though most informed people had Sweden as the favorite. How'd that work out?

So yes, I am saying the odds making market for a tournament like this is far from reliable.

The odds were not made up by some guy in an office, it's the grand total of people betting for/against said outcome.

I know, which is what makes it an inherently biased and inaccurate form of estimating actual game probabilities.

If you're saying that the S&P 500 is wrong by 25%,

This is a strawman, nobody is making any claims about the stock market.

you are the one with the burden of proof here.

And I have provided my arguments as to why the Slovaks should be the favorite. And considering the history of these two teams at this age group, the advantage is clearly Slovakia's, as Jukurit just pointed out in this thread:

This Slovakian age group (2004-2005 born) beat Finland in 2021 Hlinka-Gretzky semifinal (6-2) and beat Finland in last year's U18 quarter-final (3-2). They can definitely beat Finland yet again.

Slovakia is a clear favourite against Finland. More talented team (3 first rounders, Finland has 0) and much better goaltender (Gajan vs. Vali).

But, in any case, it would be deeply irrational for you not to invest a lot of money by betting on Slovakia.

You should be placing a very large bet on Slovakia right about now.

You're basically saying that the market is wrong to a point where you should be investing about a third of your entire investmest portfolio.

Why would I put so much of my money into such a highly volatile event? If this game was happening 1000 times I would make some wagers. Clearly you don't understand probability or investment strategy.

 

[Namejs]

Urban has a .881 save percentage, not .887. Gajan has a .911 save percetange, not .910

,881*35 = 30.8 or 4.2 GA
.910*35 = 31.9 or 3.1 GA

4.2 - 3.1 = 1.1

Might want to double check your facts before calling out my math


More shots against = more goals against. More high quality shot against = more goals against. We should expect the relative spread of GA to scale across goaltenders based on talent.

Example: A beer league goalie might only allow 3 more goals against beer league shooters than an NHL goalie (3 goals vs a probable shutout), but the spread would obviously be much greater vs NHL shooters

I can't believe this has to be explained.


You think a bunch of people betting on WJC games are betting with full information? Or are they maybe anchoring more on past tournament performance?

The odds makers had a Canada as the +160 favorites to beat Sweden, even though most informed people had Sweden as the favorite. How'd that work out?

So yes, I am saying the odds making market for a tournament like this is far from reliable.


I know, which is what makes it an inherently biased and inaccurate form of estimating actual game probabilities.

This is a strawman, nobody is making any claims about the stock market.

And I have provided my arguments as to why the Slovaks should be the favorite. And considering the history of these two teams at this age group, the advantage is clearly Slovakia's, as Jukurit just pointed out in this thread:






Why would I put so much of my money into such a highly volatile event? If this game was happening 1000 times I would make some wagers. Clearly you don't understand probability or investment strategy.

Nope, their SVS% in USHL are 88.7% and 91.0%.

Check your sources. You could have at least looked it up before calling me out for calling you out.

Their expected SVS% should decrease by a factor of x. This affects both goaltenders. What you're saying is that the decrease would be non-linear, i.e., affecting Urban by x+y. What is this based on? If both are affected in a similar way, the relative drop in expected SVS% between them would be negligible.

Urban is not a beer league goalie. He's literally playing in the same league as Gajan and saving 2.3% fewer shots. Reductio ad absurdum.

If you think the market is unreliable, do you have data that supports this view with a big enough sample size to actually prove it? n=1 won't cut it, and I'm afraid you don't understand sampling if you actually provided a singular example.

Bringing up the stock market is not a strawman, the betting market is just like any other market, e.g., the stock market, with the only difference being in the much lower liquidity.

Bringing up a short tournament that took place 2.5 years ago and making a point based on the outcomes of 4 or 5 games is not a valid argument. Slovakia beat the US and Sweden as well. If the argument would be valid, we should declare them as the gold medal favorites, which is obviously untrue.

I do understand probability and I do understand investment strategy. I am working as a risk analyst in a financial institution.

Look up the Kelly criterion. A single investment here carries a very large ROI in the long term, according to your own personal estimates. If you trust your judgment, you must place a large bet on Slovakia.

 

[allroundfan]

My not so well researched predictions.

SVK-FIN: 2-3
Should be the closest game. Finland has been improving and I'm sceptical towards any team letting in ten goals in a single game, no matter the goalie.

CAN-CZE: 5-2
Canada tends to show up when it matters and IMO has a solid team. Possible upset, but not likely.

USA-LAT: 7-3
Expect Latvia to get steamrolled, but may get a few goals due to mediocre team USA defense.

SWE-SUI: 6-2
I have concerns about the Swedish defense, and another bad start like against Finland could mean the end. But there is so much talent that I think they win comfortably 9/10 times.

 

[stastny12]

Kukumberg played in Ciernik's place on the 2nd line. If that is the alternative, it is a major downgrade that affects the entire line and Dvorsky's production. Ciernik already is a pro hockey player, Kukumberg would play 4th line wing for Latvia.

Ciernik is clearly far better player than Kukumber. I don´t deny that. But if you were watching Ciernik´s game at the tournament, he just couldn´t find his step. That´s why I am saying he´s not gonna be missed as much as we expected. For Dvorsky´s production is much more important Pekarcik. Kukumberg is just complementary player and he´s fine in the role. But tbh, I prefer Zlnka there.

 

[Eye of Ra]

Czechia has got this one

Canada is absolute ass


Happy New Year btw

Canada is ass becuse its on big ice. We all know Canada is never good on big ice

SVK, CZECHS, USA, Swiss wins

 

[bbfan419]

Canada vs Czech is the toughest to call

I would say Finland-Slovakia could go either way.

 

[Statsy]

Canada is ass becuse its on big ice. We all know Canada is never good on big ice

This came up in another thread. While I'll admit that Canada is better on small ice than big ice, the fact remains that no country has a better record on big ice than Canada does, including this Czech team we're about to play.

 

[bbfan419]

Who I think will win: Finland, Canada, USA and Sweden, who I am cheering for: Finland/Slovakia either one, Canada, Latvia and Switzerland.

 

[Czechboy]

This came up in another thread. While I'll admit that Canada is better on small ice than big ice, the fact remains that no country has a better record on big ice than Canada does, including this Czech team we're about to play.

It has been talked about. Using the most recent decade... Canada has a sharp drop off on the big ice in Europe.

Using forty years or more... It is also true they have a boatload of gold's on big ice.

Last decade has not been that great though... 1 gold though on the big ice in that decade.

I don't know where the Czechs won their back to back gold's but results from 2000 don't seem that relevant in 2024. It'd be like arguing the Habs are the greatest team in hockey today because of all their cups.

But absolutely no history shows the Czechs should win tomorrow.lol

 

[Statsy]

It has been talked about. Using the most recent decade... Canada has a sharp drop off on the big ice in Europe.

Using forty years or more... It is also true they have a boatload of gold's on big ice.

Last decade has not been that great though... 1 gold though on the big ice in that decade.

I don't know where the Czechs won their back to back gold's but results from 2000 don't seem that relevant in 2024. It'd be like arguing the Habs are the greatest team in hockey today because of all their cups.

But absolutely no history shows the Czechs should win tomorrow.lol

But we also haven't PLAYED that many tournaments on big ice in the past decade. Canada's one gold is better than most over that time frame.

 

[Czechboy]

This came up in another thread. While I'll admit that Canada is better on small ice than big ice, the fact remains that no country has a better record on big ice than Canada does, including this Czech team we're about to play.

Actually... In the 2000s... Czechs have 2 gold medals in Europe and Canada has 3 gold medals in Europe. Ironically... Two of the Canuck gold's were in the Czech Republic.lol.

1 gold for Canada in Europe in the last 13 or 14 years (2010 to today).

The other 4 gold's since 2010 are in North America.

 

[Statsy]

Again, there have been very few tournaments in Europe in recent years. Here they are since 2000, but if we go back farther the Canadian victories only increase. However, since 2000 Canada still has the most gold medals. As has been already stated, if Canada struggles on big ice, then everyone else struggles more.

2020 - Canada gold
2016 - Finland gold
2014 - Finland gold
2013 - USA gold
2008 - Canada gold
2007 - Canada gold
2004 - USA gold
2002 - Russia gold
2001 - Czechia gold
2000 - Czechia gold

 

[MM917]

Again, there have been very few tournaments in Europe in recent years. Here they are since 2000, but if we go back farther the Canadian victories only increase. However, since 2000 Canada still has the most gold medals. As has been already stated, if Canada struggles on big ice, then everyone else struggles more.

2020 - Canada gold
2016 - Finland gold
2014 - Finland gold
2013 - USA gold
2008 - Canada gold
2007 - Canada gold
2004 - USA gold
2002 - Russia gold
2001 - Czechia gold
2000 - Czechia gold

It is just people reaching for any justification they can to say Canada will lose. They should just say they hate Canada and want them to lose rather than coming up with fake "reasons" that they will lose.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Nope, their SVS% in USHL are 88.7% and 91.0%.
Check your sources. You could have at least looked it up before calling me out for calling you out.

Their numbers are as I said:

Samuel Urban Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Statistics of Samuel Urban, a hockey player from Dolne Kockovce, Slovenia born May 1 2005 who was active from 2022 to 2024.

www.hockeydb.com

Adam Gajan Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Statistics of Adam Gajan, a hockey player from Poprad, Slovakia born May 6 2004 who was active from 2022 to 2024.

www.hockeydb.com

Their expected SVS% should decrease by a factor of x. This affects both goaltenders. What you're saying is that the decrease would be non-linear, i.e., affecting Urban by x+y. What is this based on? If both are affected in a similar way, the relative drop in expected SVS% between them would be negligible.

Their HDSV% would be proportionally lower than their SV%, and a higher proportion of high danger shots would drive a larger separation in their effective save percentages.

We can see this looking at NHL goaltenders over the last 3 years (>2,000 mins at 5v5). As sv% rises, the delta between a goaltenders LDSV% and HDSV% increases - it's not a linear relationship.

Urban is not a beer league goalie. He's literally playing in the same league as Gajan and saving 2.3% fewer shots. Reductio ad absurdum.

I never said he was a beer league goalie. But a shot has had a 13.4% higher probability of beating him this year in the USHL.

If you think the market is unreliable, do you have data that supports this view with a big enough sample size to actually prove it? n=1 won't cut it, and I'm afraid you don't understand sampling if you actually provided a singular example.

Do you really think that the Canadians should have been considered the favorites in that game, based on their comparative rosters? Most people who are actually paying attention had the Swedes as the stronger team, and that showed during the game.

Bringing up the stock market is not a strawman, the betting market is just like any other market, e.g., the stock market, with the only difference being in the much lower liquidity.

Betting odds are do not come from an informed base of analysts that ensure market liquidity. It's just gamblers making bets based on their gut or putting money on their favorite team. It's far from an efficient market with investors equipped with complete information.

Bringing up a short tournament that took place 2.5 years ago and making a point based on the outcomes of 4 or 5 games is not a valid argument. Slovakia beat the US and Sweden as well. If the argument would be valid, we should declare them as the gold medal favorites, which is obviously untrue.

Last year's U18 was not 2.5 years ago, I'm afraid.

I do understand probability and I do understand investment strategy. I am working as a risk analyst in a financial institution.

Then you should understand risk tolerance

Look up the Kelly criterion. A single investment here carries a very large ROI in the long term, according to your own personal estimates. If you trust your judgment, you must place a large bet on Slovakia.

This assumes I will have the opportunity to make this bet again and again, which is not the case.

 

[FastEddie]

Help me out. The IIHF website has a playoff tree graphic that suggests USA would meet Sweden in the semifinals. Is this wrong? Seems like it would be wrong. But I can't see any other way to read it.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Help me out. The IIHF website has a playoff tree graphic that suggests USA would meet Sweden in the semifinals. Is this wrong? Seems like it would be wrong. But I can't see any other way to read it.

It's wrong. They reseed after the QF. USA would face the lowest rated team, so it would be impossible for them to play Sweden or Canada in the next round.

 

[ORRFForever]

Their numbers are as I said:

Samuel Urban Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Statistics of Samuel Urban, a hockey player from Dolne Kockovce, Slovenia born May 1 2005 who was active from 2022 to 2024.

www.hockeydb.com

Adam Gajan Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Statistics of Adam Gajan, a hockey player from Poprad, Slovakia born May 6 2004 who was active from 2022 to 2024.

www.hockeydb.com

Their HDSV% would be proportionally lower than their SV%, and a higher proportion of high danger shots would drive a larger separation in their effective save percentages.

We can see this looking at NHL goaltenders over the last 3 years (>2,000 mins at 5v5). As sv% rises, the delta between a goaltenders LDSV% and HDSV% increases - it's not a linear relationship.

View attachment 794052

I never said he was a beer league goalie. But a shot has had a 13.4% higher probability of beating him this year in the USHL.

Do you really think that the Canadians should have been considered the favorites in that game, based on their comparative rosters? Most people who are actually paying attention had the Swedes as the stronger team, and that showed during the game.

Betting odds are do not come from an informed base of analysts that ensure market liquidity. It's just gamblers making bets based on their gut or putting money on their favorite team. It's far from an efficient market with investors equipped with complete information.

Last year's U18 was not 2.5 years ago, I'm afraid.

Then you should understand risk tolerance

This assumes I will have the opportunity to make this bet again and again, which is not the case.

That stuff is WAY over my head. How do you guys know what all that stuff means?

 

[ORRFForever]

I'll be glad when Canada's game vs Czechia is over.
I have a BAD feeling.

 

[WarriorofTime]

“Betting odds do not come from an informed base” is wrong as there’s lots of nuance that goes into odds-making. It’s also a fallacy that it’s based on random public idiots making bets because they don’t want sharp bettors and professional gamblers to clean them out if there’s a big gap between betting and real odds. Notably and without fail, the only people that claim this are people that don’t bet themselves.

That being said, 19 year old international hockey teams that are hodge-podge is probably relying a lot on historical data of the country involved, but I’m sure even there they have some decent methods based on games thus far, draft picks for each team, etc. that will be “close enough” to accurate even if not as refined as an NFL divisional playoff matchup.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

“Betting odds do not come from an informed base” is wrong as there’s lots of nuance that goes into odds-making. It’s also a fallacy that it’s based on random public idiots making bets because they don’t want sharp bettors and professional gamblers to clean them out if there’s a big gap between betting and real odds. Notably and without fail, the only people that claim this are people that don’t bet themselves.

I do not actively bet, but my understanding was that odds makers set the odds to hedge themselves, so no matter the outcome, they win. No? And the only way to do that would be to set the odds based wagers received?

That being said, 19 year old international hockey teams that are hodge-podge is probably relying a lot on historical data of the country involved, but I’m sure even there they have some decent methods based on games thus far, draft picks for each time, etc. that will be “close enough” to accurate even if not as refined as an NFL divisional playoff matchup.

So in other words, the betting odds for these tournaments is based on unreliable information?

Like I referenced earlier, there is no reasonable justification for having Canada as the +160 favorites to beat Sweden, based on their current rosters (not to mention Sweden was at home and on the big ice). I'm pretty confident this is anchored by bettors leaning on historical performance.

 

[ChicagoBullsFan]

Sweden 6 Switzerland 1
USA 11 Latvia 1
Canada 5 Czechia 4 ( after overtime )
Slovakia 5 Finland 2

 

[Czechboy]

It is just people reaching for any justification they can to say Canada will lose. They should just say they hate Canada and want them to lose rather than coming up with fake "reasons" that they will lose.

That is definitely not my case... I think Canada is winning. But I see one gold since 2010 in Europe. Or 1 in the last 4 tournaments in Europe. Few ended with no medal at all. The results on north American ice are much better. Eg. 2 for the last 2.

It's wrong. They reseed after the QF. USA would face the lowest rated team, so it would be impossible for them to play Sweden or Canada in the next round.

The US have an absolute beautiful path to the gold medal game.

 

[Antonche]

Slovakia - Finland 2-3 (OT)
Canada - Czechia 4-2
USA - Latvia 8-0
Sweden - Switzerland 5-1

 

[MM917]

That is definitely not my case... I think Canada is winning. But I see one gold since 2010 in Europe. Or 1 in the last 4 tournaments in Europe. Few ended with no medal at all. The results on north American ice are much better. Eg. 2 for the last 2.

I think there is a difference in saying Canadians have more success on NA ice and they struggle on the big ice. Which I don't think you necessarily said.

I am not sure to say that they struggle on the big ice even if the results aren't as good as in NA the results are still impressive and probably as good as any other outside of maybe Russia and Finland.